get_token_accounts_by_owner

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists token accounts and can filter by mint, but it does not mention pagination, response format, ordering, or any rate limits. As a simple read operation, this is partially sufficient but lacks deeper behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is both concise and information-dense. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word adds value. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (two scalar parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage. However, it does not describe the return structure or any edge cases, such as what happens if the wallet has no token accounts. A slightly more detailed description would fully satisfy this dimension.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It implicitly defines 'address' as the wallet and 'mint' as the optional filter token, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles. Both parameters are covered, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'SPL token accounts' and scope 'owned by a wallet'. It also mentions the optional mint filtering, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_sol_balance and get_token_supply.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the primary use case: retrieving token accounts for a given wallet, with an optional filter by mint. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct in function, so the context is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.